Session 9

            There will be no Horror Origins this week because Netflix still hasn't delivered the next movie.  Unfortunately, while I'm not running low on horror series, I'm running low on easily accessible ones.  So in honor of my new life as a bachelor living in an apartment far larger than I need, let's talk about insanity.  More specifically: slow, simmering insanity and how a location can make or break the creepiness of a film.

            On to the review!

            I first saw Session 9 when I was stationed on Okinawa.  For most of 2002 I was on a huge horror kick, and I was renting as many of them as I could get my grubby little hands on.  I had never heard of the movie, but after viewing, it quickly became one of my all-time favorite psychological horrors.

            The movie itself is sparse on people and focused on plot.  Gordon (Peter Mullan) runs a floundering asbestos removal business and needs a good job to get himself and his crew back on their feet.  Thus, he grossly underbids his competition in an effort to win a government contract cleaning up an abandoned mental hospital.  It's a 2-3 week job, and he promises to get it done in one.  If they pull it off, they'll all receive a $10K bonus.

            Unfortunately, as these things typically go, shit does not get pulled off.  His only concession to the difficulty of the task is to add one more person to their usual 4-man crew.  Along with right-hand man Phil (David Caruso), possible future lawyer Mike (Stephen Gevedon) and kinda-asshole Hank (Josh Lucas), Gordon brings in his nephew Jeff (Brendan Sexton III)  to help out.  When one of the crew stops coming into work, they replace him with Craig (Larry Fessenden), a guy who has one of the best IMDB photos around.

            While all the characters are deeply flawed, their flaws play off each other, giving you the feeling that these actors actually spent years working together.  Their personalities clash and complement, making you feel that they like, hate, and respect each other just like actual coworkers do.  Their ability to play so well off each other is also what helps make Session 9 such a well done film.

            Before I go on, I think I need to single what makes the film amazing, rather than just good.  The Danvers State Asylum in Danvers, Massachusetts is the secret ingredient.  It's this sprawling, acres-wide institution that manages to impart true creepiness and, counter-intuitively, a strong sense of claustrophobia.  I really cannot stress enough just how perfectly they picked their location.  The place absolutely oozes paranoia.

            At first, it's just another job.  Yeah, they've gotta bust their asses, but work is work.  It's not until Mike finds a box labeled 'Session 9' that things start to get creepy.  As Mike tries to find more and more time to listen to the recordings of Mary, a woman with multiple personalities, things around the work site become increasingly dangerous and disturbing. 

            What works so well is the combination of men breaking down due to stress with these recordings overlayed on top of it.  Mary has three personalities inside her:  Princess, Billy and Simon.  Billy protects her from reality, Princess does most of the talking, and Simon...well Simon is a bit of a problem.  The doctor constantly tries to coerce Simon out in an effort to make Mary understand just what happened to her when she was a child.  Throwing these strange tapes on top of the film's events is what create an trulymulti-layered creepfest.

            Since getting into the plot would mean ruining a phenomenal movie, I'll leave you with this.  People are fallible.  They are susceptible to events around them.  Whether you're sane or not, we all have breaking points.

            Yes, Session 9 has its problems.  There are some ridiculous lines.  There are over-the-top moments of foreshadowing.  The entire thing, when broken down, is absolutely ludicrous.  But it's to the credit of the actors and the location, as well as the real, truly disturbing location, that makes it my second-favorite psychological horror.  Only The Changeling is more disturbing, or has a better 'twist' ending.

Hit and Run

            Here's today's story:  I went to the movie with a buddy of mine who happened to be the ONLY coworker who was actually excited to see this weekend's film.  There were about 10 people in the theater when we got there and, as is my wont, we sat in the back row, centered to the screen.  Only 3 more people entered the ginormous, nearly empty theater after us.

            The first two were older women, probably in their 50's.  They sat right next to my buddy and lady #1 proceeded to show off her new flashlight app.  During the previews.

            The third person was a morbidly obese woman who sat two seats down from me and proceeded to make phone calls.

            So you're lucky that I even did this review, because I briefly considered getting kicked out of the theater.

            On to the review!

            For those of you who don't have time to read the rest of the article:  Hit and Run was hit and miss.

            For everyone else, buckle in.  It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

            My first problem with Hit and Run is its complete inability to suck you into the film.  It opens up with our two main characters, Charles Bronson (Dax Shepard) and Annie Bean (Kristen Bell) having an intimate conversation in bed.  By intimate conversation, we mean he's insulting her in a cute yet very-not-cute way.

            You see, the trailers were very insistent on this film being brought to you by the producer of Wedding Crashers in order to make you think it's going to be interesting, funny, and, well, good.  Yeah, you were misled.  The trailer is so cut up that misleading is no longer a good enough term.  Even though it has 1/3 the characters of WeddingCrashers, not a single one is developed enough for you to actually give a shit.

            In reality, Bradley Cooper's character, Alex Dmitri, doesn't even show up until nearly halfway into the film.  The true (dumbass) bad guy is idiot ex-boyfriend Gil (Michael Rosenbaum) who figures out who Charles really is and brings his past back to haunt him.

            The catalyst for all this?  Annie gets a job offer in L.A. and Charles isn't supposed to leave his small town in the middle of nowhere, since he's in witness protection.  His witless protector is Randy Anderson (Tom Arnold) who overplays incompetence to the point that you're not sure he work for Burger King, let alone the government.

            So of course shit happens and Charles tries to take Annie to L.A. where the only job in her PhD in conflict resolution exists.  Yes.  Sadly, this is the most intelligent joke in the film.

            There are a bunch of chase scenes, some shoot-outs, and a few random conversations shoved in to remind you that this is a 'thinking man's movie.'  Of course you'd have to average about 3 thoughts an hour to actually see it as deep or interesting.

            You know what?  I'm done here.  I recommend that you go see Premium Rush.  Even though I haven't seen it, I guarantee it's better than Hit and Run.  It's no Wedding Crashers.  Hell, 30 Minutes or Less has better chase scenes.

Horror Origins: Saw

            I have to say, with this being my 12th Horror Origins review, this is my first time encountering a series that has clearly, flagrantly and painfully wasted the original film’s potential.  But here it is:  A good movie with wretched, terrible, no-good shitty sequels.

            On to the review!

            In 2004, a new, long-lasting horror franchise was born the moment Saw hit theaters.  While not a groundbreaking film, it had all the hallmarks of an entertaining, well-done horror/thriller.  There was a genuinely mysterious villain, gruesome deaths, dark and gritty camerawork and plenty of people who were not what they seemed.

            While the killer, Jigsaw, would later go on to become the ‘star’ of ever-more-tepid sequels, in this one he's merely the catalyst.  Yes, a mysterious killer is kidnapping people and forcing them into life-or-death situations.  Yes, many of the scenes show what happens to said victims.  However, in the first film, Jigsaw just was.  We didn’t care about why or what or who.  They had not yet started to try and justify his motives or develop his past.  He was just an evil, merciless killer.

            Thus, when the movie opens to two people waking up in an abandoned room, both chained to pipes, it’s a mystery for both them and the audience to solve.  The two men, Adam (Leigh Whannel) and Dr. Gordon (Cary Elwes) aren't familiar with each other, yet they must both try to survive a twisted game.  Meanwhile, a driven cop played by Danny Glover is trying to catch Jigsaw before anyone else dies.

            The story is told in a deliberately disjointed way, constantly flashing back to past victims and important events.  This way, we are allowed to ever-so-slowly figure out just what Jigsaw is after, and why these two specific guys have been chosen as victims.

            What stands out about Saw is just how little it resembles the sequels.  As Jigsaw's character becomes more fleshed out, the movies themselves become less interesting, less well written, less intense and too stupid.  The murders in the original are creepy and inventive.  It seems that the writers quickly ran out of inventive and moved on to the profoundly ridiculous.

            Plus, while there is some gore, much of the violence is left to the imagination.  There are not gallons of blood flowing freely.

            Specifically, I want to mention the scene where a man is trapped in razor wire and must painfully crawl his way out or die of blood loss.  The scene is shown sped-up, with lots of eerie lighting and frantic screaming.  While we do see a few quick close-ups of the razor wire and skin, the cameras never linger on the gore, instead focusing on the crazed, mental anguish of a desperate man in his last moments.

            As a movie, Saw holds up surprisingly well.  As a horror film, I believe it's still better than a large number of horrors new and old.  As a franchise, well, Jigsaw should consider the writer's room for his next victims.

The Expendables 2

            Sometimes you know exactly what to expect when you walk into a movie theater.  It's rare, but once in awhile you get what you want out of a movie.  Nothing more, nothing less.  This weekend's big release is such a film.

On to the review!

            Of course, like every other American male between the ages of 25-50, I spent lots of time watching 80's action flicks.  So when Sylvester Stallone got a few of his fellow cheesy action flick buddies together and made a movie about them running around and blowing shit up, I was there.  Now, 2 years later, his merry band of violent pranksters are back and they've got a few more action buddies in tow.  Welcome to The Expendables 2!

            This time Jason Statham's character Christmas isn't the youngest.  That honor goes to Liam Hemsworth, whose vague similarity to his slightly-better-known-brother Chris is just unnerving enough to make you wonder if it isn't just the same guy using age-regression software.  Along with Liam, the other good-guy newcomers are Chuck Norris as The Lone Wolf (yes, he even gets a Chuck Norris joke into the movie), Nan Yu as a specialist attached to Stallone's team.  Ostensibly she's a love interest, but it almost feels like they've included her just to reduce the number of homoerotic jokes you could make throughout the film.

            Unfortunately, we're far too light on the bad guy side of the film.  All we get Jean-Claude Van Damme as the big bad heavy, Vilain (haha, see how similar it is to Villain?  Clever writing, guys!) and his psychopathic sidekick, Hector, played by Scott Adkins.  A quick visit to his IMDB page shows that roughly 80% of his movie roles have been 'henchman' or 'fighter.'  I'm not saying it to mean that Van Damme is nothing special, it's just that I would love to see 3 or 4 badasses on the other side of the line.  That's just the greedy kid in me.

            Now here's where I reassure you that everyone you knew and loved in the first film is back.  Statham, Li, Stallone, Lundgren, Willis, Schwarzenegger, Crews and Couture are all present and accounted for.  Well, to varying degrees.  At this point, there are so many people and puns that Stallone wants to cram into the movie that some guys suffer from an even bigger dearth of screen time than they did in the first film.

            Plot-wise, it's even flimsier than the original Expendables film.  Van Damme wants to sell plutonium to terrorists, and Stallone and the others must stop him.  Ok, yeah, it's more convoluted than that, but I wouldn't want to spoil any surprises.

            The violence is to the original what Rambo 4 was to Rocky 1.  What I mean by that is: holy shit there's blood everywhere.  If you get so much as teabagged in the Expendables 2 universe, you are going to spew a mist of blood from your mouth and nose.  If you look closely during the opening scene, you can see daylight through the torso of more than one enemy shot by a .50 Cal, and it gets more ridiculous from there.

            I really don't have anything else to add.  By all means, go see this film if you want to shut your brain off.  I'll allow it this time, because it's just so damn cheesy, and unlike most Sandler flicks, there isn't any lowest-common-denominator humor involved.  Just a bunch of big guys with big guns.  (Sex joke?)

Horror Origins: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

            When you grow up, you're supposed to put aside things that are considered childish and focus on adult tasks.  Your toys went into the attic or were handed down to your kids.  Comic books went into the yard sale pile, and hobbies like D&D and molding phlegm into cityscapes are to be forgotten.

            Fortunately, that was then.  Nowadays we seem to realize the importance of having something you love.  It may be that we're simply a regressive culture, more interested in entertainment than hard work, but it may also be that we've come to realize that winding down at the end of the day doesn't have to involve polite discussion with other adults, followed by a glass of whisky.

            For me, I wind down by watching movies good and bad then telling people about it.

            For others, winding down may involve a chainsaw and face-skinning.

            On to the review!

            In 1974, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre rampaged into theaters and freaked the hell out of people.  It didn't do it through incredible violence.  It didn't have the disturbing gore-filled scenes that CannibalHolocaust would later bring to the table.  What it did have was atmosphere.  From the very beginning, TCM lets you know that you most definitely aren't in Kansas anymore.

            The film opens with corpses, and doesn't get much more cheerful.  It turns out that bodies are being dug up from the graveyard outside a tiny Texas town.  These bodies are then used to deface other properties, such as statues and gravestones.

            After a few minutes of uncomfortable scenery, we're introduced to our 5 future corpses protagonists.  They're of course there to make sure their grandfather's grave wasn't one of the disturbed ones.  After a quick scene to reinforce the fact that this is a tiny, barren, isolated area, the kids pick up a hitchhiker who is most certainly not all there.

            After swapping slaughterhouse stories with our wheelchair-bound whiner Franklin (Paul A. Partain), the crazy sets fire to a picture, slashes Franklin with a shaving razor and jumps out of the van, marking it with blood on the way out. 

            After such a strange encounter, rather than taking this as a sign to get the hell back to civilization, they swing by the old abandoned family home.  It's at this point that the kids are picked off one-by-one by the greatly disturbed neighbors, including Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen).

            This is where TCM takes that extra step to make you feel dirty.  So, so very dirty.  Rather than make the mistake many contemporary horror films are guilty of, you're fully immersed in atmosphere.  No clean, antiseptic stages here.

            When Sally (Marilyn Burns) is tied to a chair in a creepy, hot, stinking dining room, you can almost smell the dirt and sweat.  It's this ability to pull you into the horror of the location as well as the situation that makes it stand apart.

            Of course, they did this the best way possible: actually trapping the actors in a hot, sweaty, shitty space until they damn near went insane for realsies.  That particular dinner scene is remarkable as much for just how damn long it's dragged out.  It waits for you to start squirming in your chair, then continues on for several more minutes.  While the climax technically takes place afterwards, I would say that scene is the true climactic event of the film.  While still excellent, no other part of the movie does as good of a job at taking you deep into the mind of true insanity.

            While The Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn't really a film series, it's been remade and re-imagined so many times that I felt it deserved a place in the Origins write-ups.  Unfortunately, no other version has managed to hit the same notes, but they've been mostly entertaining in their own way.  If you love horror and haven't seen it, then you're doing yourself a grave disservice.

            Also, thanks again to Juese of X-Strike for Sunday's fill-in.  If you like gore and/or Japanese cinema, check it out!

Guest Strip! Japanese Gore Films

Do you feel bogged down by constant film unoriginality?  You need only look to Japan for the flip side of the coin, disheartened film patron, for the land of the rising sun is also the home of the butt-sword death duel!

            Your gracious Mainstreamin' jefe has asked me to write a piece about a grouping of Japanese b-horror splatter/action/comedies.  And yes, I am pointing out the irony of writing about such an obscure sub-sub-sub genre on a site called Mainstreamin'.

            These movies are all made (in varying degrees) by director and make-up artist Noboru Iguchi.  The titles I will be discussing are the ones that I have seen: The Machine Girl, Tokyo Gore Police, Robogeisha, Vampire Girl vs. Frankenstein Girl, and Mutant Girl Squad.  Given the similarities between these flicks, and to accommodate my memory and writing space, I will be talking about this entire body of work as a singular film entity.  

            Already in this article there have been some subtle clues as to how much blood you will see spilled/spewed/jettisoned in these movies.  Words and phrases like “splatter” and “Gore Police,” but most importantly “director and make-up artist.”  Every aspect of Iguchi's films lead us to the inevitable and always inventive gore gag, making these cut and dry exploitation films.  The audience's desire to see hyperbolic cartoon violence is exploited, as is Iguchi's own talent in bringing it to the screen (often straight at.) 

            I'd like to re-emphasize 'hyperbolic cartoon violence.'  Though there are icky moments, certainly, the effects are so over-the-top they could not possibly be taken seriously.  You will get a sharp elbow to the rib to let you know right off that these are intended as comedies.  Iguchi doesn't want you left wondering whether you're supposed to be laughing.  You are.  Crocodile vaginas are funny.

            The shock humor is of course important to note, but let us not overlook how genuinely phenomenal the effects are.  Although the motion effects (dismembered blood jets propelling bodies, etc.) are done digitally, most monsters and disfigurements are done practically, right in front of the camera as nature intended.  The flesh tends to have this great Cronenberg-meets-Power Rangers look to it and moves really well.  Also of significance is how capable a director Iguchi is.  Although the framing is clearly meant to show off the effects more than anything else, his wonderful sense of action timing really draws everything to a head.

            It's only fair to share in some of the negatives while we're at it.  Above all else pacing can be a mood killer, especially in the earlier works (Machine Girl and Tokyo Gore Police come to mind).  You can see a sense of wanting to ground the world and characters through serious events, but it's not where the skill of the production lies.  That isn't to say the characters are flat, but they do a much better job at developing them through action, which you probably could've guessed.

            Also, in films that like to push buttons, sometimes they push buttons.  The joy of watching a low budget movie at times comes from knowing that they can really do whatever the hell they want, not constrained by a studio system or trying to please anyone but themselves.  So when you have an extracurricular club of Japanese school girls in black face (classic, stereotypical black face), one of which gets murdered so her athletic runner legs can be used on a Frankenstein's monster...buttons...and the pushing.

            And now, a butt-sword death duel.  I do recommend checking out the trailers for any of the movies I listed earlier for a better all-around taste of everything I talked about.  A lot of you will probably be sated just by watching those, but all of the movies listed (except for Tokyo Gore Police) are available on Netflix Instant Streaming for any adventurous cinefile looking to dive into a messed up world that, at the very least, makes a sweet party movie.

            If you are interested in what is coming next from Noboru Iguchi, Dead Sushi is playing at Fantastic Fest very soon and I believe will be on video and VOD very soon after that.  Also, I'm pleased to see Iguchi is one of 26 directors involved in an anthology horror film called The ABC's of Death produced by Tim League of the Alamo Drafthouse, each presenting a short piece inspired by their assigned letter.

            Thanks to Pappy for letting me write something up for the site, and if it didn't suck I might return to let him take a damn rest once in a while.  Oh, and I'm Juese from X-Strike.

Pontypool

Once in awhile, you keep running across a movie that you keep meaning to watch.  I mean you really, really do, but for some reason there's always something else just a little more enticing, a little more interesting.  So you put off renting/buying/watching that one film.  "It's okay, I'll get around to it." 

            If all goes well, you end up enjoying the movie when you finally do get around to watching it.  "Hrmm, that wasn't a bad little film.  I rather enjoyed it." 

            Really, all you hope for is to not end up hating it or regretting ever letting it be on your radar.

            But once in a long while, you end up wishing you had seen the movie sooner.  You want to tell everyone you know about it.  You want to text your friends and have them over for movie night so you can show them this glorious, overlooked gem.

            That's what happened to me yesterday.

            On to the review!

            I should have known it was something special the first time I saw it sitting there in the Netflix Horror section.  It had a rating of 4.5 stars! 

            Though, in my defense, a horror movie with 4.5 stars is like a rabbit that can do algebra.  You don't expect to ever see it, and if you do you're incredulous.

            Perhaps that's why I waited months before taking a chance on Pontypool.  I wish I hadn't, because by the time the movie was over, I knew I had to spread the word.  Word.  Word word.  Woooord...word word word.  Oh, sorry.  Got a little excited for a moment there.

            Anyways, Pontypool offers such a refreshing, interesting take on the 'zombie' craze that any self-serving fan of the subgenre, or just fans of suspense in general, should take heed.  Yes, it was released in 2008 at the height of the zombie craze, but the fact that it's actually good is going to give it a much longer shelf life, much like Sean of the Dead's different take in the genre has made it a cult classic.

            So what sets Pontypool apart?  Why, it's claustrophobic atmosphere, of course!  Much like Quarantine, most of the film takes place in a static location.  Specifically, the basement broadcast booth of a small-town radio show in Ontario, Canada.  Most of the movie follows three people: morning DJ Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie), his producer Syndey Briar (Lisa Houle) and intern Laurel-Ann Drummond (Georgina Reilly) as they react to what's going on outside.

            Today is Mazzy's first day on the job after having been fired from his previous big-city shock-jock job, and he's not exactly fitting in.  He's a rabble-rouser, and now they expect him to do sports, news and weather.  It's frustrating, I tell you.

            After a few hiccups at the beginning of the show, strange things start to happen.  Reports filter in of ever-growing groups of people taking to the streets, killing and rampaging.  For the first half of the film, the only suggestions that anything is wrong are from the show's callers.  Their 'eye-in-the-sky' reporter Ken (Rick Roberts) especially delivers tight, frightening on-the-scene reports that are absolutely riveting.

            What makes all this so much more exciting than I could possibly convey is the perfect pacing.  We learn things as they do, and the plot unfolds so that both the audience and the characters come to the same conclusions at the same time.

            I can't say too much more about it without spoiling the unfolding plot.  Just let me say that you will either be greatly impressed with the direction the film takes, or you'll think it's the dumbest thing ever.  Even though I loved it, I will still acknowledge the potential for goofiness.  Personally, I think the film handles itself very well, and the actors are phenomenal.

            My only problem is how Netflix classified Pontypool.  It's suspenseful, and yes, there are zombie-like elements, but it's not really a horror movie.  It's a shame that we have such broad, useless classifications some times, because I believe that movies like this and Fido could easily find fans outside their genre.

            So go do yourselves a favor.  Sometime this week, check out that movie you've been meaning to get to.  Who knows, it may end up being the best movie you've seen in quite some time.

           

            Coming this weekend:  I'll be in Arkansas partying it up with good friends.  Fortunately for everyone, the great and mighty Juese Cutler of X-Strike Studios has graciously stepped forward and offered to fill in for me.  Stop by Sunday afternoon to find out what he thinks about a growing sub-genre of Japanese cinema.

Total Recall

            After taking nearly two weeks off, I’ve learned a few things about my little film review blog.  First, I genuinely missed typing out my opinions, quips, and comments, then posting them to the interwebs.  I guess after you do something regularly for 18 months, you start to look forward to it.  So, like video games and pornography, I’ve made Mainstreamin’ a pleasurable habit.

            Secondly, I feel like Mainstreamin’ has made me a quicker thinker, or at least a thinking quip-er.  I’m sure some of you would like to argue this, but I believe my writing has gotten tighter, my jokes are slightly less lame, and my style has definitely improved.  I only ramble when I want to, damnit!

Finally, my movie IQ has risen.  I’ve always loved movies, but writing about something forces you to pay better attention to it. I’m still able to lay back and enjoy the spectacle, but after writing about film, I feel like I’ve trained myself to notice film.  Yeah, that explosion was sweet, but did you see they accidentally switched which hand was holding the detonator?  These are things I would never have noticed before.  Thankfully, I don’t let it pull me out of the movie, but it’s cool to actually see these multi-million-dollar filmmakers are just as fallible as the rest of us.

            And speaking of fallible multi-million-dollar movies…

On to the review!

            Do you fondly remember 1990’s awesomely schlocky action extravaganza starring Arnold Shwarzenneger, Total Recall?  I can’t say it was a good film by any means, but it had all the characteristics of a ridiculous, entertaining action movie.  Blood, violence, Ahhhnold beating up people, outer-space asphyxiation, and a woman with 3 breasts.  Also, Kuato.

            Well, Hollywood decided that, while entertaining in its own special way, that Total Recall wasn’t fit to be the definitive Total Recall.  You see, the story came (loosely) from a Philip K. Dick short story titled “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale.”  Hollywood felt it was too loose an adaptation, as Mars was never a factor in the original story.

            Bring on the remake!  Bring on the reimagining!  Bring on Colin Farrell!

            Whatever they brought on, there are more problems with the remake than there were for the earlier version.  For all the changes they made from the last film, just enough is the same to render any and all plot twists completely unsurprising, and almost every change seems to be for the worse.  Hands down the biggest mistake they made was neutering the film down into a PG-13 action spectacular.  Yes, PG-13 movies have a better chance at being a hit, as that 13-17 year old male demographic tends to show up when explosions and beautiful women are on offer.  (Kate Beckinsale as Lori Quaid and Jessica Biel as Melina most certainly take care of the beautiful women quotient.)

            Unfortunately, PG-13 action movies have to make sacrifices in order to maintain that lower rating: the action.  Too much violence gets you an R.  Easy enough, let’s throw in synthetic police officers, so we can kill ‘em bloodlessly!  Then we’ll make sure everyone else dies from bloodless wounds or explosions!

            Well, ok, sure.  But no realistic death makes the entire film feel less realistic, and the lack of consequences from the violence leads to a ridiculous amount of bystander casualties.  Seriously, I’d say at least 200 people die who just happen to be at the wrong time and place.

            Anyhow, plot.  After years of chemical warfare, only Great Britain and Australia (The Colony) are habitable.  Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is an unhappy wage slave living in The Colony, who travels The Fall daily and works in an assembly line putting together synthetic cops.  (The Fall is a transport that travels in a straight line through the middle of the planet, making the trip from The Colony to Great Britain in roughly 20 minutes.)  Quaid decides that life sucks, so he hits up Rekall, a place that implants false memories.  This way you can pretend you’ve lived a more exciting life than you actually have.  Quaid's dissatisfaction with life leads him to choose the super-spy memory package.

            From there, both the original and new Total Recall hit the same notes.  Some people want Quaid to think he’s still back in Rekall, others want him to help them free an entire group of citizens  (Mars or the Colony) from the evil, greedy clutches of someone else (this time it's Great Britain).  At least the new antagonist is Bryan Cranston, who seems to bring the awesome to every role he takes.

            Since this is getting a bit long, let me summarize.  Plot: Goofy, but not in a good way.

Acting:  Meh.  Fight scenes:  Disjointed, uninspiring.  Actors aside, they could just as easily be from The Island, I, Robot or any other lame, PG-13 action flick.  Plot twists:  What plot twists?

            In fact, the only truly awesome part of Total Recall is the scenery.  There has not been such a marvelous, dystopian future on screen since Blade Runner.  Unfortunately the rest of the film does not do the scenery justice.

            While not a total shitfest of a movie, Total Recall version 2.1 is a completely pointless remake.  No changes add to the film, and it’s pretty much a fluffy, meaningless romp where you don’t really care if Quaid’s life is real or not.  Just go play yourself some Deus Ex if you want to experience a luscious world that actually has a fun, interesting plot.